1999 Toyota Corolla Reviews - Page 2 of 8

1999 Toyota Corolla GL 1.3 from UK and Ireland

Summary:

Faults:

Nothing has gone wrong with it. That includes when my grand father had it from new.

General Comments:

I really thought I would be slating this thing as I do not like Japanese cars as a rule. I find they are very overrated and fall short of European cars in many ways.

This Corolla is in many ways just like the rest. For a start it is probably the ugliest car ever made. It is so ugly you need to crouch down when you pass people you know in the street! This one is particularly bad because it is purple.

However, I have now been driving it for two weeks and have found I quite like it. This is mostly down to it being an automatic, the first I have driven.

The car itself is pretty slow, however I can get 70-80 without too much difficulty. Unlike most slow cars I have driven it isn't frustrating. It is very relaxing and easy to drive. For such a simple car is really does offer an effortless driving experience. It would be an excellent commuting car if the fuel economy wasn't so bad (it is only a 3 speed).

My final view is that it is fine, but there are probably better cars of this type out there.

1999 Toyota Corolla CE 1.8L from North America

Summary:

Ideal for the niche it is meant to fill. Feels very solid. 1.8 L surprisingly responsive.

Faults:

Nothing during the first 1000 miles. I noticed the seats are not comfortable after 40+ minutes of continuous driving.

General Comments:

I recently inherited a 1999 Corolla CE Auto 1.8 L, with 117K on the odometer. I drive 41 miles ONE WAY to work, so though I have only had the car for 2.5 weeks, I have already put 1,066 miles on it (enough to get a very good feel for it).

The biggest benefit is one you would expect; using cruise control (set at 70 mph) the car averages 35 mpg (based on a mathematical fuel test 90/10 hwy/city driving). NOTE: Every 10 mph over 60mph reduces fuel economy (on ANY vehicle) by 4 mpg. This is a result of drag coefficient. Based on this theory, the true EPA estimate for the car would be under 40 mpg (hwy). The 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid is estimated to get 37/31 city/hwy, to put things into perspective.

My car has had one owner before me. It has all power options except mirrors, digital odometer with trip A and B, A/C, and a good stereo (I use an iPod through a cassette adapter).

I have only two complaints: No leg room in back (though the trunk is huge). After a 45 min commute, seats begin to feel uncomfortable.

We have a 2000 Mazda Protégé LX which I LOVE, but I have to say that as a 2nd car, the '99 Corolla is a pleasant alternative.

6th Jun 2008, 01:22

About the mpg: So you've found out about the hybrid hoax you too? Please don't tell the hybrid people, they'll be mad at you. The fact of the matter is that most 4 cyl compact cars can match the hybrid mpg figures, even clunkers from the nineties. Even my mothers VW from the eighties has the same mpg as a modern hybrid. The hybrid is maybe and that's a maybe, just slightly better in the city.

Why put a ton of technology and electrical components into a car to achieve basically... nothing?

4th Aug 2008, 11:18

Well the thing about older (80s,90s) models is they are lighter than newer cars. The are lighter because they are SMALLER and have FEWER safety features. ABS, airbags, reinforced crumple zones, etc all add weight. So there is the trade off.

If you stripped all of that out of a Prius... remember the every 100lbs rule? Every 100 lbs reduces mpg by 2%. There is also the issue of how CLEAN a car runs. Can't touch a hybrid on that. But all that being said, if the purse is tight (and for most these days it is), buying a used four banger can be a win/win situation.